The Keene Sentinel Wednesday, October 31,2007
by Sarah Palermo
Rindge developer Van Dyke is behind both
Robert Van Dyke is now fighting battles over land-use regulations in two Monadnock Region communities.
In 2004, the Rindge developer proposed a condominium complex in jaffrey near Mount Monadnock and in March, he applied to build another complex on Franklin Mountain in Winchester.
Members of the Winchester Planning Board unanimously rejected that proposal in September; but put the issue back on the agenda for Nov 5 because they are concerned they may have acted too hastily, according to board member Kenneth A. Cole
They will examine the process they used to reach the denial and reopen the public hearing for more information from the developer.
The jaffrey proposal has been tied up in legal battles for three years, with a recent petition from local residents added to the piles of paperwork.
Twenty-two citizens from Jaffrey, the town governments of Dublin and Marlborough and the Society for the Protection of N. H. Forests filed a petition last week in Superior Court, asking a judge to overrule the decisions made by the Jaffrey planning and zoning boards.
Both boards ruled in September that the complex would not need variances from a town ordinance establishing buffers around wetlands.
Because the plan shows 28 units on one lot shared by all residents of the complex, instead of separate lots, Van Dyke did not need a variance from the town's wetlands buffer requirements, according to the zoning board minutes.
The wetlands-protection law requires lots to have a minimum of 200 feet of shore frontage, so the single lot would be in compliance. If the complex were divided into separate lots, it would not meet the requirements and the project would need a variance according to the minutes.
The petition claims the decisions are illegal because they allow the developer to bypass the intent of the law.
James P. Bassett of Concord, the petitioner's lawyer, said the complaint may hold for all towns in the state.
"If it's as simple as doing a condominium development instead of a conventional subdivision", Bassett said, "a lot of developers will go that route to avoid satisfying environmental ordinances".
"I don't think it would be solid policy for Jaffrey or any community to follow".
Van Dyke is confident his opposition was a minority of the town and the decisions of the boards will stand.
"It's a sign of the times," he said Tuesday, when reached by phone at his Rindge office. "It seems like a lot of people who have moved here to Jaffrey are not pro-growth."
Bassett did not know when the court will decide on the matter; but according to Lee A. Sawyer, chairman of the zoning board, the matter is on the agenda for the board's Nov 6 meeting at the town hall.
At that time, the board will discuss whether to grant the petitioners another chance to argue for the necessity of the wetlands variance.
"This hasn't been as curt and dry as everyone hopes it would be," Sawyer said.
Winchester plans
In Winchester, Van Dyke's proposal for 32 condominiums was shut down by unanimous vote by the planning board in September.
At the time, board Chairman Margaret A. Sharra requested twice that the board wait until it's next meeting to hear more information and vote on the matter.
During the discussion several board members expressed concern that the town would become tangled in a legal snag similar to the situation in Jaffrey.
At that meeting, Sharra suggested they reconsider how the decision was reached.
Kenneth A. Cole made the motion in October to open the issue again and she said the board did so under advice from it's lawyer.
"We might have been a little hasty with the denial," Cole said. "Sometimes we make decisions under a little stress and in this case, we were able to reconsider it".
The plan the members see at their next meeting will be slightly different, according to Van Dyke, who would not say what changes had been made; but called them minor.
At this time, the proposal is still for a 32 -unit condominium complex with a community center.
The hearing on the development will be reopened at the meeting of the planning board on Nov 5 at 7 p.m. at town hall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"At that meeting, Sharra suggested they reconsider how the decision was reached.
Kenneth A. Cole made the motion in October to open the issue again and she said the board did so under advice from it's lawyer."
According to a letter sent to me by attorney Silas Little, attorney for the abutters; who had a conversation with Barton Mayer, the attorney for the town of Winchester. Mr. Mayer informed him that the Planning Board of their own motion and volition decided to rehear Mr. Van Dyke's application.
After listening to the tape of this meeting ( October 15th ) there is no doubt that chairperson Margaret Sharra was solely responsible for the reconsideration of this applicant's proposal. Though he had filed an appeal with the Cheshire Superior Court on October 12th, Sharra took it upon herself to force the board to reconsider their denial of his application, claiming that under a "slip decision" by the Supreme Court concerning a Zoning Board reconsideration, the Planning Board had the right to rehear Mr. Van Dyke's application even though he had not approached them for a reconsideration. Margaret Sharra, for nearly 45 minutes, argues that it would be unfair to Mr Van Dyke and his attorney if he was unawares of this decision and therefore she has the authority to do this. It is clear from listening to the tape, that Sharra has another agenda and not the town's best interests at heart.
Seems this developer can pretty much do what he wants at any time with the blessings of our elected town officials. Here's some hard questions for those that we trust to oversee that our town laws are followed when it comes to developers and new construction.
Mr. Van Dyke was given permission by the Planning Board to conduct a perk test for his septic system and to dig a temporary well to be sure there was enough water to support his planned 32 unit condo project. The well was to be dug in the Southeast corner of the proposed lot. He was to use the old existing logging road; which he had used earlier to conduct other perk tests in 2006. Instead Mr. Van Dyke, brought in an excavator and bulldozer and began hauling away truckloads of soil and digging without a permit. When complaints were brought, nothing was done. He then brought in a Skidder and began logging the area. Mr. Van Dyke, clear cut and changed the landscape of the mountain, a clear violation of PDR rules; yet was never sited by our town code enforcement officer; why not? A new road was cut in all the way to the back Northeast corner of his lot, where upon a new well was drilled less than 75 feet from existing wetlands; another violation and still no citations were issued by the town. Mr van Dyke then forested many of the old tree growth without a permit and only when complaints were voiced again did he bother to apply for one. He bulldozed over seasonal brooks to put in this road and the infractions were observed by our conservation officer/town selectman Gus Ruth; yet once again, nothing was said or done.On it on it goes with this developer, he totally disregards the rules with carte blanche and our elected officials look the other way, WHY? What the heck is going on with all of this preferential treatment? Why hasn't Van Dyke been fined and cited for all of his violations, where are our town officials?
Just who's going to benefit from this project besides Mr. Van Dyke?
I've been following this story in the newspaper and see that he has stirred up a hornets nest in Jaffrey too and been given the same kind of favorable treatment there too. What makes this guy think he can destroy every mountainside in the area and go around from town to town ruining everything he gets his hands on.
Post a Comment